If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

International law is so diluted by US actions in recent years claiming exceptions in the name of interests claimed and defined by us, that one would have a hard time finding a fair and honest judge who would not at least believe the Russians make a similar case.

These laws are more contracts between sovereign parties than binding codes anyway - and when parties act unchecked outside the terms of a contract they change the terms of the contract iaw said conduct.

One can argue all day long judicially---put it is always countered by reality on the ground as physical actions taken by any country regardless of ideology have always spoken louder than international laws/agreements regardless of actor and or actors involved.

This Russian FM statement sentence goes to the heart to the Russian info war and they have repeated it so often they actually believe it.

The United States and the European Union have repeatedly accused Russia of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs and escalating the crisis, but Moscow has repeatedly denied these allegations.

They never tire of stating we have done nothing inside the Ukraine---we do not provide materials and weapons, we do not provide actual troops and mercenaries, we did not shoot down MH17, we did not shell across our borders and our borders are secure--- thus we are the "aggrieved party" nothing more nothing less.

When a nation repeatedly is trapped in it's own "rationality" that it creates to explain it's actions and cannot turn loose of that "rationality" there will never be a political solution and the military solution is the only option.

When a country decides to define it's external actions on ethnicity and languages and has a finger on and threatens the use of nuclear weapons to back up that ethnicity claim then we might as well rewrite international affairs and state that all country borders world wide are fair game to be changed meaning the strongest neighbor rules---and that leads us where?

It leads us to this.......so does western media and western leaders openly ask themselves the following simple question---What the heck is a Russian uniformed and Ryssian Navy ID carrying Marine doing in eastern Ukraine when the Russian FM above stated "we are being wrongly accused by the West and we are not meddling"?

OR have they gotten so use to the Russian lies they simply go on with business as usual and think nothing of it as experience has shown them in the last six months nothing will change the Russian version of "reality"--not all the talking, not all the negotiations---only sanctions, sinking Ruble and oil prices BUT that does not even get the attention of Putin.

AP---"Russian humiliation or no humiliation" some others see Russia as much as a threat as I do and I went through the Cold War here and thought in 1991 it was going to be a thing of the past.

Good for you. I don't think anyone on this board has stated that Russia is not a 'threat' to U.S. interests. The difference remains in the extent and causes of that threat.

Originally Posted by outlaw

I think you might agree with me for a moment that any leader of a country that is "rational thinking" in the face of a "free falling economy" WOULD in fact do everything possible to 'save" his or here country.

There are alot of tangled assumptions in that statement. 'Rational thinking' only means that there is a logical connection between motive, opportunity, and means. That's it. Now what we think is rational from an outsider's perspective for Russia's political elite will be different from what they determined to be rational from their point of view. Humans are also rationalizing - meaning that their decisions are shaped by previous decisions and their own perceptions. Not every decision is made on its own merits but is made within the continuity of all the decisions before it, starting with the anchoring positions and assumptions. This is why people "throw good money after bad" or "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Additionally, we also have to consider the consequences of collective and bureaucratic decision-making. There is a 'collective rationality' produced by the outcomes of internal debates and deliberations between key personalities and bureaucracies. Sometimes this 'collective rationality' generates sub-optimal outcomes when compared to the assumption of monolithic state decision-making. So the Putin administration may in fact be doing 'everything' they think possible to "save" the Russian economy.

Originally Posted by outlaw

BUT what if he or she takes a completely different stance---meaning a military geopolitical victory takes precedence over virtually everything else.

It depends how a "military geopolitical victory" fulfills the desired objectives of the Putin administration. It may be that the outcomes of such a victory (say, consolidation of state powers or control of the state by Putin and his allies) are more important to the decision-makers than the consequences, such as recession. Generally speaking, domestic interests trump international ones, and sometimes directly dictate foreign policy decisions. Even with the economic consequences, Putin has managed to consolidate state powers and sustain high public opinion, even for him. This probably reinforces Russia's intrasgience when it comes to Ukraine.

Now when a state is commited to a course of action, the issue becomes less about the course taken and more about the credibility of the state. One of your arguments is that Russia's actions have encouraged NATO solidarity, and is therefore 'irrational' since the assumption is that Russia wants to break NATO. That may be true. But it also may be true that the Russian elite on some level welcomes NATO's perception that Russia is a threat because it indicates that Russia is being taken seriously as a world power. Reversing course now would give credence to the argument that Russia is impotent.

Originally Posted by outlaw

SO AP---just what maneuver did the Russian soldier sgo missing on?

You ask these questions like I care about Russian propaganda.

Originally Posted by outlaw

If as you argue they are "rational thinking human beings"---then one would say totally defying the laws of economics in the face of a fully collapsing economy is intensely damaging to one's career if you are a leader of a "normal thinking" country.

First, to say that there are 'laws of economics' to be defied is absurd. There are causual relationships between inputs and outputs that sometimes hold true under some circumstances given specific conditions.

Second, Russia's economy is not 'fully collapsing'. It's heading towards recession. There is no way to predict how long the recession will last or the depth it will go.

And third, the recession may or may not be 'intensely damaging' to Putin. Political leaders have survived worse, even in reliably democratic countries. More likely, Putin will find a scapegoat to direct any public resentment - probably the West since the majority of Russians view the West as the enemy.

Originally Posted by outlaw

ethno neo imperialism cloaked in the simple term fascism or DO you have an explanation for the eight Russian mercenary groups which are truly Russian fascists fighting in the Ukraine against from Russia alleged to be Ukrainian Nazi's?

I've answered this question elsewhere already.

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

See again AP--absolutely not reading the Washington Post story that triggered the "humiliation" questions leads to many of your comments or lack of answers to many of my questions placed to you.

If you had read the article---then does the following resemble any form of Russian "humiliation"--especially since what the author wrote in her article has been repeated multiple times by Russia just before and right after the Crimea annexation and Putin's Duma speech.

BUT surprisingly Russia has not mentioned any of the same "humiliation" statements since Russian troops crossed into the Ukraine. interesting is it not?

But if you had really understood Putin and all of what he has stated/written since 2002 ---- the "humiliation" accusations are just another Russian effort to define what Putin's geopolitical goals are actually.

1. Putin wants the destruction of NATO thus no longer a perceived military threat to Russia
2. Putin wants the EU split from the US thus the total reduction of US influence in all of Europe
3. Putin wants the EU to be destroyed as an economic/legal power in Europe as he views western liberalism to be an evil thing for the Russian culture ie the EU general legal protection of homosexuals is a massive Russia dislike right now--down to refusing any mail coming into Russia from Finland if the stamp has a nude man on it

If you really took the time to analyze the macroeconomics of Russia's dislike of the EU Association agreements--you will be light years ahead in your thinking-ever wonder WHY?

WHY--because any country that has joined the EU must go through all of their own laws and reform them, cancel them and or rewrite them to match the standard EU legal/economic law requirements WHICH goes totally against Russian State owned enterprises and the Russian oligarchs. The matching of EU laws would effectively limit the Russia gas weapon currently being used by Putin.

Secondly it would force Russia to reign in their old line Soviet current corruption practices which led to the fortune that Putin himself hides.

For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland’s first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.

When the slow, cautious expansion eventually took place, constant efforts were made to reassure Russia. No NATO bases were placed in the new member states, and until 2013 no exercises were conducted there. A Russia-NATO agreement in 1997 promised no movement of nuclear installations. A NATO-Russia Council was set up in 2002. In response to Russian objections, Ukraine and Georgia were, in fact, denied NATO membership plans in 2008.

Meanwhile, not only was Russia not “humiliated” during this era, it was given de facto “great power” status, along with the Soviet seat on the U.N. Security Council and Soviet embassies. Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine’s borders. Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the Group of Eight — although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.

So AP get back to the actual articles' acutal assumption---there was no Russian "humiliation" which was the core argument presented to the West as the core reason for Russian annexation of the Crimea and the creation of "New Russia".

AP---these are the actions of what "rational thinking" leaders who stated there must be negotiations--which were then Minsk 1 and 2.

I recall even you pushed the theory of negotiations did you not?

You got them but did the negotiations work? No ceasefire in the fighting---AND Russia never even attempted to implement anything in Minsk 1 and 2 --and the two agreements carried the Russian signatures.

#BREAKINREPORT
2800 Ukrainian troops and fighters remain POW and MIA in #Donbas.
Only 1300 were freed and exchanged since the #Minsk treaty.

By the way AP---this was a key element of Minsk 1 and was to be completed within 24 hours after signing Minsk 1.

#BREAKINGNEWS Ukrainian intelligence expects large scale Russian invasion army offensives around or after the Ukrainian elections. -

15:34 Lavrov: Implementation of Minsk on eastern Ukraine should grow into nationwide dialogue

DPR premier: Militia plans to seize Kramatorsk, Mariupol, Slovyansk

DONETSK. Oct 23 (Interfax) - Self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko has announced the militia's plans to regain control over a number of Donbas cities and warned that fierce hostilities may resume.

"Kramatorsk, Mariupol and Slovyansk will be ours. We intend to take them, to regain them. So, I do not rule out the possibility that there will be fierce hostilities again," Zakharchenko told reporters on Thursday.

Simply amazing how well western media is so well informed on Ukrainian events--they still have not picked up on the German President of their CIA giving a false statement concerning the shot down of MH17 two days ago.

When Reuters says it has evidence of direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine, everyone jumps. Nevermind YOUR/OUR efforts over months!

See again AP--absolutely not reading the Washington Post story that triggered the "humiliation" questions leads to many of your comments or lack of answers to many of my questions placed to you.

Originally Posted by outlaw

See again AP--absolutely not reading the Washington Post story that triggered the "humiliation" questions leads to many of your comments or lack of answers to many of my questions placed to you.

Repeatedly trying to kill the messenger is humorous at best.

Originally Posted by outlaw

1. Putin wants the destruction of NATO thus no longer a perceived military threat to Russia
2. Putin wants the EU split from the US thus the total reduction of US influence in all of Europe
3. Putin wants the EU to be destroyed as an economic/legal power in Europe as he views western liberalism to be an evil thing for the Russian culture ie the EU general legal protection of homosexuals is a massive Russia dislike right now--down to refusing any mail coming into Russia from Finland if the stamp has a nude man on it

All of these are unverifiable assumptions. You use words like 'destruction', 'total reduction', 'destroyed', and 'evil thing' - common terms when viewing through an absolutist prism where things are either one way or not. But in reality, Russian foreign policy is far more nuanced and limited than global domination. More realistically, the current Russian leadership is probably primarialy concerned first with preserving Russia's perceived sphere of influence and second, with decentering international power from the U.S. and building a more multilateral system where Russia can exercise more influence.

Originally Posted by outlaw

You got them but did the negotiations work? No ceasefire in the fighting---AND Russia never even attempted to implement anything in Minsk 1 and 2 --and the two agreements carried the Russian signatures.

Nobody ever claimed that negotiations are either 100% effective or that they not long, drawn-out, dramatic affairs. Negotiations are a process, not an event, and they can at times be as unpredictable as conflict. But negotiations more often than conflict produce sustainable agreements afterwards - again, how many conflicts end with negotiations and how many end with capitulation? The difference between Georgia and Ukraine is that there are a far larger number of stakeholders in the negotiation, and the principal belligerents (Ukraine and Russia) do not have absolute control over them or even over the negotiation process. Minsk 1 and 2 provide the framework, and obviously more work needs to be done, but their partial implementation is not indicative of the sufficiency of negotiations. If that were the case, then every failed war would be an argument to abolish war...

Also note that the conditions on the ground appear to have less of an impact on negotiations' pace than 'external' conditions: economic situation in both Ukraine and Russia, war weariness among the public, and the approaching winter season.

It's been the position of Moscow since the start of the conflict that the eastern provinces should have more autonomy, so it is not surprising that they are angling to capitalize on the coming elections in that territory to push that agenda. What is surprising is that as a self-proclaimed expert you are so dismissive of clearly stated Russian policy positions while simultaneously embracing Russian propaganda at face value as demonstrations of an 'altered state of reality'.

Last edited by AmericanPride; 10-23-2014 at 05:30 PM.

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

the principal belligerents (Ukraine and Russia) do not have absolute control over them or even over the negotiation process.

I don't now much about Ukrainian side, but I dare to comment Russian side with couple exaples. Russians have withdrawn FSB guy Grikin, they have withdrawn Borodai. They support semi-openly Tsarev group in DNR. Pensions and public servants' wages will come through his connections from Russia. Russians could seal borders at will, they can send messages to hard core guys like Girkin, if this will not work they can force their will with snatch teams. Some levers that can be used. They don't use them, so they are interested in status quo?

About autonomy aspect in eastern regions. Those eastern regions, you are talking now don't correlate with this Putin's view. Was he just dreaming or plan didn't work out?

SOCHI, October 23. /TASS/. Personal attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin are a continuation of information war unleashed against Russia, Chief of the presidential administration Sergey Ivanov said on Thursday.
“First, they attempted to use the non-system opposition as a battering ram for decreasing authority of the power but failed,” Ivanov said on the sidelines of the Valdai International Discussion Club underway in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi. “Long before Ukraine’s crisis we clearly felt that our domestic and foreign polices did not satisfy those across the Pond’.”

A Russian form of the "race to the bottom" meaning---do I Russia attempt a full takeover of "New Russia" before or after the Ukrainian elections on the 26th and do I do it before my own Rubel crashes to lows not seen since the brutal crash of 1998.

Ruble seems to be heading for 42/$ (now 41.91), even with no word yet on the supposed rating downgrade

"It's a devaluation. It doesn't matter now how many dlrs the central bank dumps on the mkt," trader tells @Vedomosti http://vedomosti.ru/~HjR

Assume at some point Russia will complain it is a western "humiliation" that is being forced upon them as Putin alluded to it in his Milan press conference---"the US and the KSA have a secret agreement to destroy the Russian economy".

AP---you will notice that in this WSJ article the author is starting to use my concept of "an altered state of reality" that you so stridently oppose.

What he missed and I was surprised is a little more going into the constant Russian propaganda and info war statements that form many of the Russian FM and Putin statements.

The Russians have currently a problem with their own propaganda---they believe it and when you are in an "altered state of reality" it is difficult to recognize you need to urgently find the "exit ramp" before your own economy totally collapses as you are seeking a "military/geopolitical victory".

Goes to the heart of the Washington Post "humiliation" article. Excert taken from the previously linked WSJ article.

Notice just how Russia starts their own internal "humiliation" myths and then direct them towards the West. That "drumbeat" is then passed via their social networks, and news media both inside Russia and world in general

The Russian conspiracy theory isn’t a new phenomenon. A senior Russian security official, Nikolai Patrushev, rehearsed a couple of historical theories in a recent interview with state media: that the U.S. lured the Soviet Union into its disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and that Washington manipulated the collapse in oil prices in the 1980s to destroy the Soviet Union. Likewise, the new sanctions against Russia are seen as a U.S. effort to bring about regime-change in Russia

Notice the authors use of the following sentence......rehearsed a couple of historical theories in a recent interview AND again from the Washington Post article the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders and western violations of "international law" are perfect examples of such "rehearsal of historical theories".

For those commenters who buy into the various Russian "humiliation myths" this should actually end the discussion on NATO alleged "eastward expansion".

Gorbachev Confirms There Was No NATO 'Non-Expansion' Pledge

23:15 (GMT)

Russia Behind the Headlines, an English-language news site sponsored by the state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta, ran an interview with the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in which he refutes a common Kremlin propaganda claim about NATO expansion.

Taking their cue from Russian leaders, the pro-Kremlin propaganda outlet globalresearch.ca (Centre for Research on Globalization) has repeatedly published claims that Western leaders "lied" about plans for NATO, and even historians have interpreted Gorbachev's own memoirs to imply the West broke its promise to Moscow. Putin even blamed the forcible annexation of the Crimea on "NATO enlargement."

This interview shows why we're fortunate such a historical actor is still alive to explain what happened when the Berlin wall fell 25 years ago.

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact was terminated in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context, mentioned in our question. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia did not object at the beginning.

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are obeyed.

The idea of "NATO expansion" as a trigger for Russian aggression is a popular one for analysts keen to blame the West for the war in Ukraine, explain Russian alienation, claim the US has treated Russia like a loser, or find something the West can change instead of demanding change from Moscow.

Gorbachev's remarks make it clear that there weren't promises made, that some aspects of the discussion only concerned Germany, and that at best we can really only argue about the violation of "a spirit" not a letter.

Anna Applebaum dispenses with these claims in a piece titled "The Myth of Russian Humiliation" in the Washington Post in which she covers the joining of both EU and NATO by Central and East European nations:

These two “expansions,” which were parallel but not identical (some countries are members of one organization but not the other), were transformative because they were not direct leaps, as the word “expansion” implies, but slow negotiations. Before joining NATO, each country had to establish civilian control of its army. Before joining the European Union, each adopted laws on trade, judiciary, human rights. As a result, they became democracies. This was “democracy promotion” working as it never has before or since.

But times change, and the miraculous transformation of a historically unstable region became a humdrum reality. Instead of celebrating this achievement on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is now fashionable to opine that this expansion, and of NATO in particular, was mistaken. This project is incorrectly “remembered” as the result of American “triumphalism” that somehow humiliated Russia by bringing Western institutions into its rickety neighborhood. This thesis is usually based on revisionist history promoted by the current Russian regime — and it is wrong.

For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland’s first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.

Indeed, Russia would be hard put to explain why the decision from the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, where Georgia and Ukraine were not given invitations or Membership Action Plan, due to opposition from Russia, Germany and France, and a decision by President Barack Obama not to deploy missiles in Czech Republic and Poland, prior to the reset, could somehow explain aggression against Ukraine 6 years later in 2014.

Strong indicators that Russia wants via their mercenaries to disrupt the Ukrainian 26 Oct elections as Putin cannot allow it to be an example of a former Soviet style government actually pulling off fairly democratic elections after a fair, open, and relatively peaceful election campaigning.

Still say that one of the underlying fears that is driving Putin is to eliminate the success by the people during the Maidan as an example for the Russian population as a whole.

BREAKING Per credible sources #Russian terrorists in #Donetsk received strict order to take #DonetskAirport whatever the cost before Oct 26.

On October 23 news came #Russian terrorists in #Donetsk must vacate all taken hospital beds by Oct 26 the latest. Smth is waiting to happen.

Right now news on imminent #DonetskAirport attack fr North hints to soon unfolding carefully planned provocation.

This summer Moscow Levada centre studied how well Russian know how started WW I and WW II. They were asked also about Ukraine. Sorry for Google translat.

Poor understanding of how to start the first and second world wars, raising the specter of the Third. But this is not the main problem. Light (in the opinion of those who have not been there) victory in Georgia in 2008, an easy victory in the Crimea in 2014, give rise to the public the impression that Russia - a great power. It is worth and to war. The cenario that clashes in eastern Ukraine could turn into a "war between Russia and Ukraine", ready to imagine 66% of Russians. Whether they want to immediately stop the conflict, to withdraw "volunteers" to stop supplying weapons there? The survey shows that the answer is no. In general, if it wants to Russian war? Maybe they do not want, but are willing to support those who express such an intention. Answers to the question "Will you support the Russian leadership in a situation of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine?" Were distributed as follows: "Definitely yes" - 17% "more likely" - 38%, "Probably not" - 18% "Definitely not "- 11%" Do not know "- 16%.

Notice there is no longer any Russian FM nor Putin comments responding to the "alleged" "humiliation reasons" stated so often by them during the Crimean event.

From RIA today:

SOCHI, October 24 (RIA Novosti) - US widespread interference and dictatorship lead to the escalation of conflicts worldwide, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"The exсeptionalism of the United States, the way they implement their leadership, is it really a benefit? And their worldwide intervention brings peace and stability, progress and peak of democracy? Maybe we should relax and enjoy this splendor? No!" Putin stressed at the plenary session of the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

"Unilateral dictatorship and obtrusion of the patterns leads to opposite result. Instead of conflicts settlement – their escalation. Instead of sovereign, stable states - growing chaos. Instead of democracy – support for very dubious public, such as neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists," Putin said.

Wow--first Russian complains of being constantly "humiliated by the West because they were a superpower"--NOW it is the reverse Russia does not want to be WHAT a "superpower?---really?

Russia doesn't claim superpower's role - Putin

SOCHI. Oct 24 (Interfax) - Russia is not going to portray itself as a superpower, but it will not allow interference in its internal affairs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

"Does Russia claim the role of a superpower's? No. This is quite a burden for us. What do we need this for? We need a lot of resources, time and strength to develop our own territories. We don't need to meddle anywhere and command anything, but don't you meddle in our affairs, don't pose as arbiters of the world's fates - and that's it. If Russia's leadership in anything is possible, then it's in defending international law," Putin said at a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Friday.

Russia believes that, instead of imposing one's interests on others, it should help build a balanced system of relations in the world, he said.

"Can it be that someone might not reckon with anything, while we can't defend our vital interests and those of the Russian-speaking people and the Russian population in Crimea? It can't be this way. And I want everyone to come to understanding this. You should get rid of this temptation and attempts to comb the world as you see fit but build a balanced system of interests and relations, which was stipulated long ago, and all you should do is treat this with respect," Putin said.

"Yes, we perfectly understand that the world has changed, and we are ready to listen to this and adjust this system accordingly. But we can't allow our interests to be fully ignored, and will never allow this," he said.